Andras Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 posted with Sunday's Permission, attached is a CFG edit of the RCS module to make it a simple fuel tank with 300 fuel units. Copy the RCS folder and rename it C&S Module, replace the cfg with the attached cfg.This lets you build a Apollo style module without needed an extra fuel tank under the RCS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Grayfox- Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Is the large 5meter to 2 meter nose cone went to count as a fuel tank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Punch Posted July 30, 2011 Author Share Posted July 30, 2011 Yes most of the adapters and couplers are fuel tanks, because it allows them to pass fuel through. They contain zero fuel themselves though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingmonkey Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Yes most of the adapters and couplers are fuel tanks, because it allows them to pass fuel through. They contain zero fuel themselves though.Why not just class them under 'strut' then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Punch Posted July 30, 2011 Author Share Posted July 30, 2011 Because I made them before struts allowed fuel flow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Grayfox- Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 seems that some couplers are bugged.And with the YawMaster, their is a spelling mistake.Watning: Side effects of the Yawmaster-2000 may include chest pains, headache, sudden crew death syndrome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castun Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Seems there may be a bug with the backfire retrorockets. I had a rocket with backfire retrorockets on 2 completely separate stages, and whenever it reached the stage to fire off the first retrorocket, it also fired off the other one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Punch Posted July 30, 2011 Author Share Posted July 30, 2011 seems that some couplers are bugged.And with the YawMaster, their is a spelling mistake.Watning: Side effects of the Yawmaster-2000 may include chest pains, headache, sudden crew death syndromeCan you be more specific on the problems you're having with the decouplers? Thanks for pointing out the spelling error, I'll fix it. There's no spellchecker in notepad! (also with your post, there is a spelling mistake ;P)Castun there are some bugs with the staging that are apparently going to be fixed in KSP 0.9, it's not really specific to any parts. Supposedly if you click on the part icon in the stage editor it can fix parts thinking they're in a different stage, so you could try that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirmonkey Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 if its the same problems with the decouplers(specifically the ones designed to hide the engines) i'm having is that they can't support crap for weight. they buckle in on themselves since the top half of the decoupler is fake theres no physical mass to hold it and what its connected to in place. so if you put a semi heavy stage above them the whole thing collapses in on its self.if need be i can do some screen shots to show what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrosammy Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 All those parts are very usefull, but some parts seem to have a huge impact on the framerate for me. I don't have this problem with any other add-ons.Here are the parts:Escape Tower4X-800 Engine ClusterK2-XNERVAYawmaster-2000Maybe there's something fromg with the meshes? Strangely some other add-on parts that have higer mesh file sizes don't have this problem. And it looks like no one else has this problem... :'( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 All those parts are very usefull, but some parts seem to have a huge impact on the framerate for me. I don't have this problem with any other add-ons.Here are the parts:Escape Tower4X-800 Engine ClusterK2-XNERVAYawmaster-2000Maybe there's something fromg with the meshes? Strangely some other add-on parts that have higer mesh file sizes don't have this problem. And it looks like no one else has this problem... :'(I have that problem with the escape tower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashcunning Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Can I make a request for triple and quad length fuel tanks? 3x and 4x the fuel and weight, maybe a nominal dry weight savings. The double is nice for reducing the number of parts, triple and quad would be even better.Can I also suggest renaming of the folders? The game seems to sort the parts alphabetically by folder name. Renaming the folders could have some organizational benefits. Instead of large/medium/small liquid engine, how about liquid engine XXXX. Where XXXX is the thrust of the engine. That way all the liquid engines are together in-game and sorted by increasing thrust. The same could be done for solid booster XXXX. Fuel tank XXXX, XXXX could be capacity or length (1x, 2x, etc.). Leading zeros would probably be a good idea, liquid engine 0065 for example. Apologies if this has already been mentioned, I haven't read all 16 pages.Edit: Perhaps better future proofing would be 'part type(liquid engine) part size(1 meter) part specifics(0065 thrust)'. So your small liquid engine could be 'LE 1m 0065t' or 'LiquidEngine 1m 0065t' to be more legible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castun Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Castun there are some bugs with the staging that are apparently going to be fixed in KSP 0.9, it's not really specific to any parts. Supposedly if you click on the part icon in the stage editor it can fix parts thinking they're in a different stage, so you could try that.Thanks, I'll give that a shot. Is this perhaps related to the bug which causes blank stages to be inserted in the list of stages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Punch Posted July 31, 2011 Author Share Posted July 31, 2011 I have that problem with the escape tower.I think I know what causes this, it's something to do with the object being composed of multiple discrete objects instead of a single mesh. I'll see if I can fix it, although I have a feeling it might require me to remap the UVs (which will be annoying). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Yeah, I always merge my models into as few objects as possible. I feel cleaner that way, but maybe it has other benefits! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Grayfox- Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 the 3 attachment orbs on the decoupler is what i was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Punch Posted July 31, 2011 Author Share Posted July 31, 2011 That's intentional, it allows you to attach the decoupler shrouds to engines of different lengths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirmonkey Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 its nice but i think its also why they can't hold very much weight and collapse on themselves. because if you set it on the very first connection point instead of the 3rd one the decoupler fails and flips over from to much weight. i'll try to make a video of what happens with one of the ships i made using them this afternoon, i need some sleep first though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Punch Posted July 31, 2011 Author Share Posted July 31, 2011 The number or position of the attach nodes should have no impact on the load bearing capabilities of a part. The decouplers all have the default connection strength settings, so they should be just as strong as the standard decouplers, fuel tanks etc. I could make them stronger but then your stack would probably just break at a different point.They flip over because the collision mesh is way down at the bottom of the coupler, so that wide engines don't interfere with it. This means that the display mesh does sometimes clip through other parts but I didn't really think it was a huge problem (only happens when you jettison stages) and it's the best solution I could come up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kharn Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Could you make a 3m 4x liquid engine with performance equal to four M-50 engines? The current one is practically useless with only 650 thrust. I changed the config file on mine to 1600 (vs 650) thrust, 700 heat production (vs 600) and 88 (vs 36) fuel consumption. (the M-50 has 400, 650 and 22, respectively) and it seems to work out well.The change really opens up the usefulness of a multi-stage 3m rocket since it can use the RS-501 decoupler, vs the 3m-to-5x1m adapter plate and five M-50s to get a usable amount of thrust requiring you to haul your empty tanks with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Punch Posted July 31, 2011 Author Share Posted July 31, 2011 Sure I can look into tweaking it. That was one of the first parts I made so I didn't really know what I was doing when it came to 'balanced' settings for the config file. Can I get some other opinions on the 4 engine cluster? What do you guys think would make for a useful thrust/fuel consumption setting without making it overpowered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Punch Posted July 31, 2011 Author Share Posted July 31, 2011 Also I just wanted to say thanks to everyone using my parts for all the feedback in this thread. It's very helpful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andras Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Sure I can look into tweaking it. That was one of the first parts I made so I didn't really know what I was doing when it came to 'balanced' settings for the config file. Can I get some other opinions on the 4 engine cluster? What do you guys think would make for a useful thrust/fuel consumption setting without making it overpowered?I think that doubling the thrust to 1300 is needed, but perhaps only increasing the fuel consumption to 54, so each 3m tank lasts about 30 seconds (slightly less efficient then the stock LFR). 1300 still leaves room for the 5x1 plate full of M50s.Also, I think the medium needs to be tweaked. It's more powerful then a stock LFR run at safe power. If it was reduced to 120 thrust then it would fall into place better IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitperson Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Have to say, i do love this pack, i have had some musings though.With the RCS module, have you though about having the main body set up as a fuel tank and then have the nozzles separate as an individual piece which you then mount on the side with the symmetry (x4), also as a consideration with the 5X1 adaptor an inverted one would allow it's use for intermediate stages as you could couple it to the bottom of decouplers.but anyway, enough gibbering from me, this is an excellent pack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt'n Skunky Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Sunday, about your RCS Module, is there any reason why it's type is CommandPod and not SASModule? It seems to be causing Kerbals to die from the multiple Command Pod issue.It's been brought up in this thread: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=1408.0Arrr!Capt'n Skunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts